9 comments Paying Players Will Not Clean Up College Athletics

LZ Granderson seems to believe paying college players will help to clean up the college game by reducing the amount of cheating and lessen the effect outside influences have on the student-athletes. It's a complicated issue because many people don't want to pay players. I am not sure if I believe players should get paid, but I also believe a college athlete should be able to make money off their name in college. For me, I'm not sure a student-athlete should be paid for playing a sport, but I don't mind a student-athlete making money off of his fame from playing that sport. How athletes would go about being paid is a completely different topic as well. Do you pay women's volleyball players as much as you pay men's basketball players? If not, doesn't this violate Title IX? I think it does, LZ Granderson says this reasoning is a cop out and then never explains why this is a cop out. Modern sports journalism at its best.

There are a lot of issues present in this discussion. I simply don't think paying players will drastically lessen a player's incentive to cheat or take money from a booster. Professionals in high paying jobs in "the real world" will take bribes and cheat, despite the fact they earn a good salary. The need for more money is part of human nature and I don't believe a stipend paid to college athletes will change this. I think if a college athlete gets paid, he still wouldn't mind taking $100,000 to go to one college over another. LZ Granderson seems to also believe runners and boosters are a product of the system and would decrease in influence if players got paid. I can't help but disagree.

My feelings are simple: There is so much money involved with big-time college sports, it's unethical that they're not better compensated.

I don't know if "unethical" is the right word. Maybe it is. College athletes should probably be compensated in some way for the revenue they bring into the school, but I read many articles on why players should get paid, but don't read much about how exactly this would work logistically. It seems like there are many who want student-athletes to get paid, but provide no hint on how this would work exactly. A good idea with no ideas on how to implement the idea successfully is simply useless.

That's why I'm not too disgusted with third-party runners -- such as relatives or AAU coaches -- who shake down schools for cash in exchange for highly sought after recruits.

So it is perfectly fine for third-party runners and relatives to shake down schools $100,000 as long as the players are getting paid, but if a player got paid a $1000/month stipend it all of a sudden becomes morally wrong to shake down a school for $100,000? I don't understand this point of view. What's the difference? The runner or AAU coach isn't looking out for the player's well-being in either situation. In both situations, he is selling the player's services to a university and LZ can't be naive enough to think this money is going to pay for food and books.

Not to mention, if every Division-I college team pays their football players $1000/month, these runners and coaches will still sell the services of players to schools. An even playing field is an even playing field. Runners and outside influences aren't going to magically disappear once student-athletes get paid. They are still going to want money and the stipend isn't going to be enough for some highly recruited athletes.

There is a quote from a Nas song (that of course I can't find) where he says if it were up to him everyone would be a millionaire. Because I'm a loser, I analyze rap songs. If everyone in the world is a millionaire then the price of goods would increase and being a millionaire would no longer mean anything. It's a severe form of inflation.

In the 1980's wealthy people had a cell phone, but now in 2012 nearly everyone has a cell phone. In 2012 it is a matter of who has the better cell phone with more features, while in the 1980's only those who could afford a cell hone had one. If Nas had wished in the 1980's that everyone could have a cell phone, well it came true, but it doesn't mean everyone is wealthy because having a cell phone is no longer a sign of wealth. The same thing would happen in college football. If every Division-I football player got paid, it wouldn't stop cheating or the buying of highly recruited players by colleges, because every Division-I player gets paid. What would matter is how much one school is willing to offer an AAU coach to sell a player to that school. The price each school was willing to pay for a highly recruited player would still very much matter. Paying players wouldn't get rid of dirty tactics at all because the playing field is still level when every Division-I player gets a stipend.

I understand how moving cash underneath the table is cheating, but it's hard for me to characterize the schools or their coaches as cheated.

The question when it comes to boosters isn't who is getting cheated, but whether the act itself is cheating or illegal in some fashion. The cheating isn't classified by who gets hurt when coaches cheat, but is classified by the fact cheating by coaches is against NCAA rules. Me buying a pound of marijuana from someone isn't cheating or hurting anyone, but it still is against the law.

the University of Central Florida received the first major NCAA sanctions since Penn State. The school is banned from postseason play in football and men's basketball for one year; is hit with a reduction in scholarships; and is on probation after the NCAA committee on infractions ruled that runners and cash were involved in attracting a high level of talent to UCF. The runners in question were a pair of men with ties to a sports agency.

Can LZ Granderson honestly say he thinks this type of thing will go away if these UCF players were getting paid? I really doubt it would stop. Why or how would runners or boosters stop trying to attract top talent to UCF if the players were getting paid? The runner or booster still needs to sell the talent to a school. Why would the athlete getting paid $1000/month affect this in any way?

Now I'm not saying what they did was right, but it's not hard to see why UCF felt it needed to cheat.

To make money and win.

Since joining Conference USA in 2005, the school's athletic program has exploded in terms of infrastructure -- an athletic village was built, an indoor football practice facility was constructed and in 2007-08 it the school opened a stadium and arena.
If you're gonna do all of that, you gotta win big. And in order to do that, you need big talent.
So explain to me how the hell UCF will no longer need to pay for this talent if the football players are now getting a stipend? How would a stipend help UCF attract better talent than they attracted when the football players didn't get a stipend? Every Division-I football student-athlete would be getting paid, so UCF would still have to attract top talent in some way. Even if the stipend is handed out based on football revenue, UCF would still have trouble attracting talent. I completely fail to see how a stipend fixes any issues the NCAA has with runners.

Not only are there no guarantees an athlete is going to see much of the money being exchanged but they can also become indebted to the runner in a way that isn't healthy or equitable.

Well, right. The players aren't seeing a lot of that money. I think that much we can all agree on. What kind of booster or runner won't pay a player or sell a player to a school under the line of thinking, "Well I don't need to sell Player X for $100,000 to the University of Nebraska because he gets paid $2000/mo anyway."

It's naive to think there is a link between players getting paid and AAU coaches selling players to schools. Players aren't going to be paid any amount of stipend amount (at least without schools going bankrupt) that will prevent AAU coaches from selling players to certain schools. How in the hell can a stipend of even $5000/month prevent an AAU coach from selling a player to UCF for $200,000?

But what about the moral erosion caused by the system perpetuated by the NCAA and its members that gave birth to these runners in the first place?

The NCAA is dirty. We all know that. The system that perpetuated these runners in the first place isn't going to go away once college athletes start getting paid. Human nature gave birth to these runners in the first place. Human nature to make as much money as possible and use a valuable asset you have (in this case, the talent of a college athlete) to make this money.

Think about it: Millions of construction dollars flew out of the door in a handful of years at UCF, but the young men expected to create the cash flow of tickets, memorabilia, TV appearances and postseason games couldn't take an equitable sip from the stream.

Fine, say we pay the players. They are paid. Explain to me how this will stop vultures from preying on these athletes and directing players to certain colleges in return for cash rewards? How will this prevent highly recruited players from wanting cash payments to choose between schools? Either way, he gets paid for playing football, so what would stop him from wanting a little extra to sign with one college over another? The answer? It won't.

LZ Granderson is mixing up his messages here. He is getting paying players as a fairness issue mixed up with paying players as a way to rid college athletes of the dirty underbelly.

You wanna know how these runners gain so much influence in the lives of highly recruited athletes? They show them how much a jersey costs in a bookstore.

You wanna know how these runners will continue to gain so much influence in the lives of highly recruited athletes? These runners will tell highly recruited players the backup quarterback for a 6-6 team earns $1500/month in a stipend, shouldn't he as a highly recruited player earn more than that for leading his team to a 10-2 record? Of course he deserves more money, that's why the runner is working hard to get $100,000 from LSU to secure the player's commitment.

There will always be a message and a way to sell kids. Always. This won't change even when money starts changing hands from the university to the players. That jersey in the window becomes a different example used once the stipends to college athletes start flowing. That jersey becomes a nicer car, money for choosing Oklahoma State over Oklahoma, or some other form of receiving an illegal benefit. The example used for why that highly recruited athlete deserves more will change, but the need for wanting more won't change.

Student-athletes are not slaves, but given the amount of money associated with big time college sports, it's not a stretch to view them as the NCAA's version of indentured servants.

Except for the fact they don't have to play football and could choose to pursue a college education without playing sports. Other than their ability to freely choose whether they play sports or not in college, these players are indentured servants. Once you pretend a person doesn't have free-will, any person can be seen as an indentured servant. I realize not all high school athletes could qualify academically to their college of choice, but not all high school students can qualify academically to their college of choice either. I find it hard to view people who make a choice to play sports as indentured servants.

Ohio State got in trouble last season because eight players exchanged their rings and jerseys for tats and cash totaling $14,000, roughly $1,750 a player. The football program made a net profit of $35 million.

I have no problem with college athletes selling their jersey or rings for cash. I think this is something college athletes should possibly be able to do, as opposed to being paid a stipend. Let the free market rule. If someone wants to pay $2000 for a signed Terrelle Pryor jersey, that's his business and Pryor's play on the field made the jersey worth that amount.

And while it is true much of that money is used to fund other departments, the notion that a school like OSU can't afford to pay players seems disingenuous. The argument that Title IX complicates the discussion is a cop out.

I don't believe the argument that Title IX complicates the discussion is a cop out. LZ won't tell us here exactly how or why using Title IX as an argument is a cop out, so I'm guessing we will probably never hear exactly why it is a cop out. He just writes "it's a cop out" and leaves it at that. I don't see how you can pay male athletes and not female athletes. I think Title IX makes it clear under the 10 guidelines the Department of Education uses. The fourth guideline specifically states:

Travel and per diem allowance;

This must be equal for men and women's sports.

The three prong test used in determining the ways Title IX can be achieved says the following,

"male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.as well as,

"the athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."

I think this makes is fairly clear it would be hard to pay male athletes in any disproportionate amount compared to female athletes. So I think saying using Title IX as a reason not to pay college athletes is a cop out is a cop out in itself. Just don't say "it's a cop out" and not explain. I think Title IX makes it very difficult for men and women athletes to receive different amounts of compensation based on the different amount of revenue each gender's sport would bring in. Frankly, it isn't fair for the swimming team to be compensated with a stipend when revenues from the football are helping to support the swimming team.

Runners may be sleazy, but they are only the byproduct of a system that feels worse.

I'm not sure of a way to change the system to get rid of runners. Paying college athletes won't achieve this goal. This much I feel pretty sure.

So the NCAA has every right to turn its focus on the UCFs of the world, but until its members start paying student-athletes, it's not going to generate much sympathy from me.

I'm not sure the NCAA wants sympathy, they want to keep up the appearance of no impropriety in college athletics.

For as long as the student-athletes responsible for generating millions are living in poverty, runners have a better chance of being viewed as Robin Hoods than the NCAA as victims.

Every college students lives in some form of poverty. Of course some college athletes generate enormous amounts of revenue for their school, so perhaps these athletes should be compensated for this. Runners and AAU coaches aren't selling players to schools in order to benefit the player, but to benefit and line their own pockets. They aren't Robin Hoods and no one is viewing the NCAA as a victim. Either way, AAU coaches, boosters, and runners who give players money to play for certain programs are in the wrong whether student-athletes get paid or not. I don't see how this point of view changes depending on whether student-athletes are getting paid or not.

The idea paying college athletes could lessen the incentive to sell players to a school is very naive. This just isn't realistic. Even if college athletes get paid, there will still be plenty of incentive to sell a player to a certain program. Runners and AAU coaches aren't using the money they receive from schools as a sort of pledge drive to buy food for a highly recruited player, they are using this money to line their own pockets. If college athletes got paid, there would still be an even playing field and there would still be plenty of incentive to shake down a college for a recruit. Does LZ Granderson really think a stipend is going to stop the flow of cash under the table for players? That's pretty naive.

15 comments LeBron James Is An Asshole/Competitor/Sending A Message By Not Shaking Hands With the Magic

I don't know if anyone heard but LeBron James had a handshake that did not happen heard 'round the world after the Cavs lost to the Magic. In typical mainstream media fashion many columnists took this lack of a handshake to mean many things about LeBron James. Apparently when a player is not in the mood to shake hands after losing an important game, it becomes a big, big deal. There are three different viewpoints that have been written and I think two of them are wrong and one is right. Then I have been studying up and am going to give out my list of the top 10 relievers of all time, which will undoubtedly be wrong.

Let's start first with Michael Rosenberg of FoxSports who thinks LeBron is just a total asshole for not shaking hands after the Game 6 loss.

Can somebody please tell LeBron James that "King" is not an official title?

Forget Conan O'Brien, we need Michael Rosenberg as the new host of the Tonight Show. Those one liners are pure gold.

LeBron followed up by refusing to shake hands with the Magic, storming out of Amway Arena in Orlando without answering reporters' questions and then defending himself when he was finally cornered Sunday.

Ok, now we know what this is all about. We were talking about Jim Rice yesterday and his attitude toward the media, and how the media pretty much hated him for this bad attitude he had. The media will NOT be ignored. If you don't answer their questions, they get pretty pissy. This story has nothing to do with a handshake and has more to do with the media not getting their dumb questions answered.

I'm with you on that, LeBron. Absolutely, it is hard. Not as hard as, say, putting in 12-hour days at a manufacturing plant, and certainly not as hard as getting laid off from the aforementioned manufacturing plant, but it's hard.

Oh, rim shot!

Well, that certainly came out of left field. I think LeBron was just saying after losing an important game, he was not in the mood to shake hands. I am not sure he was looking for a pissing contest on who has the hardest job.

"It's not being a poor sport or anything like that. If somebody beats you up, you're not going to congratulate them. That doesn't make sense to me."

I don't know if I agree with that statement completely...but James said "beats you up," not "beats you," so I think he was differentiating between a competition and a fight...maybe.

This is the part where Michael Rosenberg starts picking out old quotes showing what great sports other athletes are.

Well, it does make sense to me. And you know who agrees with me?

Michael Jordan!

Michael Jordan? The same guy who treated his own teammates like shit, allegedly got his father killed for his gambling debts he refused to pay due to his competitive nature, the guy who is currently running the Bobcats into the ground and yelled at my fiance for offering him Powerade over Gatorade (Gatorade was not available and he requested a drink) at a golf tournament? I am not sure I like him enough to agree with Michael.

And you know who agrees with me?

Magic Johnson!

Yes, Magic Johnson was always a great sport and he is a good businessman. He is also famous for finding the cure for AIDS, which turns out to be money (Top 20 South Park episode of all time for me).

In 1991, Jordan said the two-time defending champion Pistons had been bad for basketball with their overly physical play. The Pistons took offense, and after the Bulls swept them, several Pistons walked off the floor without shaking the Bulls' hands.

That Pistons team included Isiah Thomas, which is why Michael Rosenberg is not including him on the list of good sports, even though he was generally a good sport. If he included Isiah Thomas as someone who was a good sport, it would disprove his idea that LeBron James was completely in the wrong by allowing the Magic to celebrate on their homecourt and wait until later to congratulate them because Isiah did something similar in his career.

He wasn't being competitive. He was just being a sore loser. And nobody likes a sore loser.

I disagree for reasons I will share later. I think he was being a sort of sore loser but he had good reasoning for it.

The difference between athletes and movie stars is that athletes can't just storm off the set. They are held accountable.

Another major difference is that athletes and movie stars have completely different professions. There are also probably 1,000 other differences before you get to the fact athletes are accountable and actors are not, which I am not sure is even true. This is not a good comparison.

And you know who agrees with me?

LeBron James!

"We went up against a better team," James said in 2007, after losing to the San Antonio Spurs in his only Finals appearance so far. "We know the Spurs are definitely the better team in this series."

Clearly LeBron James did not feel the Magic were the best team in the series. He was frustrated and did not want to say something he may regret at a press conference or on the court. He did not want to act like an ass, so he gave himself time to get over it, then spoke about it. That seems sort of logical to me.

Or was that true? Phil Taylor thinks LeBron may have had ulterior motives and in that exact moment he wasn't thinking of how the Cavs had just lost the game, but how he could send a secret message to the Cavs.

There's not much debate to be had there. You're not likely to find anyone who would seriously argue that snubbing the Magic was a classy move on King James' part.

No, it was not classy at all. I will 100% agree with that idea but there was some sort of logic to LeBron's decision to act like a baby. Not to mention, it really wasn't that big of a deal. Sure, he acted like an ass but it's doubtful in that moment the Magic were incredibly angry with him.

The more interesting question is, Why did LeBron do it?

Because he was very upset what he viewed as a superior Cavs team lost to the Magic and played so poorly in doing so. That's pretty much it.

"I'm a competitor," he said. "That's what I do. It doesn't make sense to me to go over and shake somebody's hand."

That's almost believable, because James has grown up in an era in which the definition of a great competitor has been badly skewed. We heap so much praise on an athlete who "hates to lose" that some players don't even recognize when that hatred goes too far.

He was actually asked the question and answered the question. His answer is 100% believable...not "almost" believable.

It's been said that Michael Jordan would have cheated his own grandmother to win at cards. That's not passion. That's unhealthy.

But Michael Rosenberg holds him up as a beacon of sportsmanship light in this dreary world of assholes. This can't be true.

It's hard to believe he was just so overcome by disappointment that he forgot his manners.

How is that hard to believe? Hasn't Phil Taylor ever been upset? I have acted like a baby before when I was disappointed playing sports, so it makes sense LeBron just left the court before he acted like a jerk. He chose the lesser of two evils because he is human after all.

By not uttering a word, he was speaking volumes to Cavs management.

This is probably 2% likely. I would imagine at that moment when LeBron James was disappointed he knew Cavs management would get his super secret message that walking off the court and not shaking hands with the opposing team would convey. If James really had a problem with Cavs management I think talking to them, which he will do, is more effective than walking off the court.

James was putting Ferry on notice that he has no intention of trying to drag this group to a championship again. More help had better be on the way next year, King James seemed to be saying, or tell the Knicks to start getting my uniform ready.

James may have been thinking this at some point during the game, but I really doubt he thought that not shaking hands with the Magic would show that he did not like his supporting cast that much. I doubt this because it really makes no sense. Maybe he is frustrated with his supporting cast, but I don't think walking off the court and being kind of classless would convey that message.

Now, James isn't ready to say all that publicly yet. That's where the public relations savvy comes in. He has another year in Cleveland, at least, and he doesn't want to spend it being portrayed as the demanding superstar threatening the franchise,

So LeBron sent a super secret warning shot across the bow of Cavs management and now he will be quiet in hopes they understood it. Cavs management probably know James needs more help already because they won 66 games in the regular season and did not even make the NBA Finals.

That's more of a Kobe way to play it.

No it isn't. Kobe would dump on his teammates in public and then demand a trade. He actually did that too.

James was telling the Cavs that if he has to walk away like this at the end of next season, he just might keep walking all the way to New York.

That super secret message of walking off the court without shaking hands also had a super secret walk that showed Cavs management not only was he going to be a free agent, but he was going to New York. It's amazing how much a walk can tell a person. It was his "I'm going to New York, not any other city, when I am a free agent" walk.

It might have seemed like James had finally made a little mistake, but don't be fooled. He knew exactly where he was going.

Sure, buddy. I find it more likely he was angry with his team's performance and did not feel like shaking hands and he will later ask for more team help in the off season...using words to express the feelings, and not hoping his walking off the court without shaking hands conveyed his displeasure.

Though I think LeBron acted like an ass, I do agree with LZ Granderson's take on this issue.

He starts with a story about his kid, which is pretty hyperbolic, but it does make sense given this situation.

Well, call me a contrarian because I don't have a problem with the way LeBron handled the situation. In fact, I thought it was rather intelligent given the circumstances.

Contrarian.

How many times have we seen quotes taken immediately after a tough loss, blown up and spiral into a greater controversy because the person talking was angry?

Now let me hedge a little bit. I think LeBron was acting like an ass by not shaking hands with the Magic, but we don't know exactly what was going through his head. Maybe at that point he was fed up with his teammates (which would be conveyed verbally, not through the magic walk off the court) or something else and he knew it wasn't the best time to speak to the media either. He possibly knew he would say something that wasn't smart, so the best thing to do is walk away and calm down.

Dwight Howard and the Magic hardly looked disappointed that LeBron didn't stick around after the horn.

I guess this is another thing that gets me. The Magic were in the middle of celebrating their victory, they probably did not even care LeBron walked off the court. They wanted to celebrate at that point, not shake everyone's hand.

A ritual of insincere gestures being sold as good sportsmanship is yet one more step in the march toward mediocrity -- like telling young players, "Good job," when actually they didn't do a very good job at all.

I feel like I am LZ's brother right now. There is such a thin line between giving people false confidence and building them up. I think even an insincere gesture is better than no gesture at all, but I do see what LZ is saying.

That's like the un-apology apology public figures are famous for giving when they're more sorry they got caught than they are for the action that got them in trouble.

We as a people do love apologies, whether they are sincere or not. I don't think someone should really apologize if they are not sorry, but I know I am in the minority on that opinion.

You want to know what's poor sportsmanship?

Brett Favre cutting off all communication with his mentee and supposed friend Aaron Rogers after being traded to the Jets. Or Shaq freestyling about Kobe's Finals loss -- more than four years after being traded from L.A.

It's very hard to continue to agree with LZ's position when he goes off topic like this, but I still do agree. Though both situations are not great sportsmanship, they don't pertain that much to this situation.

Taking a day to calm down and gather your thoughts, that's a sign of maturity.

This is actually where I agree. Rather than say or do something stupid, it is more mature to just walk away from the situation...though I know people will argue walking away from the situation is immature.

That to me is much better than ripping teammates he may have to play with or a coach he may have to play under next season. I always tend to believe that teams function better when you keep unrest in the family.

So LZ seems to think that LeBron James was not happy with his supporting cast, but he doesn't believe his actual walking off the court meant anything to Cleveland management, it meant more that he was disappointed and frustrated.

You catch an irate LeBron James talking after a series in which he literally had to carry his teammates in the fourth quarter each game, then you're likely to get him saying some things that could interrupt the chemistry that got them to 66 wins.

LeBron was one of the few Cleveland players that showed up in the series and I think he really struggled with that. I think it is better to walk off the floor, not fake congratulate someone or do a press conference after the game angrily, and give yourself time to gather your thoughts before you start bitching.

Besides, I tend to think good sportsmanship isn't just about what you do in the heat of battle but what you premeditate and what you do afterward.

An interesting way to look at it. He separates sportsmanship in the heat of battle, or immediately after the heat of battle, from sportsmanship at a press conference afterwards and during the days after the game.

As he said, he's a competitor and like him, I believe competition isn't always nice.

Though I think LeBron James should have shaken hands with the Magic, I do think he is a jerk for not doing this but don't have a problem with him not speaking to the media after the game. He did not want to say something he would later regret and he probably wanted to take out any problem he had in private...which is what should happen. I also think James was frustrated with his supporting cast but his walking off the court was not a show for Cavs management to see, he was truly upset.

It is hard to make a list of the top 10 relievers of all time, especially since the role has changed so much over the past several years. Here's my list:

1. Mariano Rivera- I don't see how this can be argued and he is even better when you throw in the postseason numbers.

2. Dennis Eckersley- He did it for a shorter amount of time because he was a starter for a while but was incredibly dominant.

3. Hoyt Wilhelm- He was a different kind of reliever from today but he was incredibly successful with just a knuckleball.

4. Rollie Fingers- He was pretty consistent his whole career and is one of the first famous closers.

5. Rich Gossage- He stayed around a little too long but he pitched longer innings and had great numbers in his prime.

6. Trevor Hoffman- He averaged just over an inning per appearance in his career, so he is the poster boy for the new reliever/closer. I don't know where to rank him really, cwhen compared to the other relievers who pitched 1-2+ innings so I put him here. It's hard to balance the innings pitched with the numbers he has put up.

7. Bruce Sutter- I may have ranked him above Trevor Hoffman if I did this tomorrow or any other day. His career was a little shorter than I would like to be in the top 10, but he was money in his prime in the late 70's/early 80's.

8. Dan Quisenberry- Great career in the 80's and he even pitched more than one inning per outing and still got saves.

9. Lee Smith- I am not as high on Smith as other people are. He appeared dominant and intimidating on the mound and he could be at times.

10. Jeff Reardon- He had success no matter where he went. John Wetteland almost made this spot but did not because he did not pitch as long and well as Hoffman and rarely pitched more than an inning, so I rank the other relievers over him.

Go ahead and tear me apart or disagree if you like. This was very hard, so I know I was wrong on something.

2 comments Don't Hate Them Because They Are Beautiful...And Don't Call Them Gay Either...Actually Just Don't Talk To Them

LZ Granderson, who I normally really enjoy reading, has written a column that tackles the most pressing topic in sports right now. Why do we call our athletes "gay" if they pose in magazines and try to be beautiful? I think we should all sign a petition requesting that President Obama forget about the economic conditions here in the country and forget the war in Iraq to focus more on making sure attractive male athletes are not called "gay" when posing in model-esque poses in magazines. LZ, who I can't emphasize enough that I normally enjoy reading his columns so I am a little disappointed, take it away.

Make no mistake about it: Alex Rodriguez's spread in the current issue of Details makes him look like a total tool.

Don't worry this is not about A-Rod, this is about A-Rod looking gay in the magazine...but LZ doesn't want us to use "gay," so I will say he set himself up for excessively feminine poses.

And trust me, if that were the whole story, I wouldn't be so irritated by the dialogue that has followed the photos' release.

If by dialogue, you mean, "anything Wallace Matthews wrote about this incident," then yes I was very irritated by it as well.

In fact, the whole story has way more to do with us than it does him.

A-Rod is beautiful, but that's hardly a reason to hate him.

I love it when Vidal Sassoon commercials are put in written form on ESPN.com. It makes the article written seem so.........useless and not related to sports at all.

Now, you can hate him because he flaunts it.

You can hate him because he lied, because he cheated or because he's not Derek Jeter.

Thank you ever so much for permission to hate Alex Rodriguez. Here I have been black market hating him for nearly a decade now. It finally feels so good to get this out in the open and not feel like I am an outcast for hating him. Thanks for the permission LZ.

Would it be inappropriate in the context of this article to say you have given me permission to come out of the closet in saying that I actually hate A-Rod and Derek Jeter? Just don't tell my loved ones...they don't know yet.

But most men, particularly the insecure ones, hate him because he reminds them of their own perceived shortcomings, and so to make themselves feel better, they call him the one word they have relied on to strip a man of his worth for decades:

Playoff choker. (Wait, that was two words.)

gay.

How about if I call him, "excessively feminine" in his pictures? Would that work? Because I don't even think "gay" is the right word for it and I actually haven't heard anyone call him "gay" for taking those pictures. Maybe I just don't remember...I got hit in the head with a glow stick at my "Coming Out of the Closet For Hating Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez" party last night.

It's curious how technology makes it possible for anyone on the planet to pull up A-Rod's photo spread, and yet when it comes to discussing it, we're trapped on some sort of medieval hamster wheel.

Political commentary! Possibly true political commentary, but also the very reason I am writing my post about this article. Every once in a while I feel like sportswriters use one incident in sports to go off on a political or social tangent. I feel like that is happening here.

Athletes are very macho people and pride themselves on being tough and don't want to be seen with any type of faults that may demean them as men. That's how they are and that is how they are built and supposed to be perceived. As much as I would love to see this change a little bit, it is not happening because of the culture of sports.

Just like ballet dancers and ice skaters (except Apolo Ohno because he is the man and VERY macho...please don't post this anywhere thinking I was insulting him...plus he is a speed skater and they are like the macho version of an ice skater) aren't going to go around and act more macho generally, pro athletes are going to be judged for posing in magazines that make them seem excessively feminine. We can drop the word "gay," that's cool, but changing the culture is harder to do.

It's not a character flaw in the fans and the players, it is a response to their public image in their sport. They present an image in their sport and the fans react to it.

I'm not going to lie -- I'm not an A-Rod fan

A disclosure: I invited LZ to my "A-Rod and Derek Jeter Hating Party" and he did not come.

Look, gay simply means you're attracted to the same gender -- that's it.

Two things:

1. Gay also means you are excessively happy. Don't take that usage away from the word, I like to use it in socially awkward situations...well actually to make people feel awkward in social situations.

2. A-Rod was kissing himself in a picture...so he does come close to the same gender definition, except in a more "I love myself above all others" way.

I asked former New York Giant Jason Sehorn what it was like on the field after he became the face of 2xist underwear, and he said he heard all sorts of negative comments.

He is modeling underwear. He should expect to hear negative comments about him. That is what happens when you model in your underwear. Notice Sehorn did not say everyone called him "gay," but he heard negative comments. There is a difference. I am all for tolerance and not belittling people but I don't know how anyone expect in the sports arena for one person in the entire locker room to not make fun of him a little bit?

I find it really weird if these type of comments really bother athletes. It's not like they were forced to do these types of advertisements and pictures, they chose to do them. They have to be secure in themselves enough to get in their underwear in public, I don't see how comments would affect them.

Another former NFL player, Tony McGee, said his sexuality often was questioned because of his looks.

"Guys will say anything on the field to try to get an edge," he said. "And for some of them, calling me 'pretty boy' was all it was. You do your thing during the game, and then it's over. But for others, it was really personal, like they just couldn't let it go."

I am really trying to be sensitive here, but is this that big of an issue? It's not high school. If Tony McGee is a homosexual then the comments were true and they should not bother him, if he is not a homosexual then he knows the taunts are not true and should ignore them.

Easier said than done I am sure, but I am sure when there is taunting there is a lot of other nasty comments that go on during a football game not related to how pretty a player is. Often times players do take taunting to where it gets personal and that is probably where a lot of fights start out. It's more of the result of a player being an asshole rather than a person being insecure.

Clearly, you don't have to be a gay male to be good looking or say, "Tom Brady is a good-looking guy", but you do have to be secure in who you are and who you are not.

Right. I would think if there were ever a group of individuals that were secure in who they were, it would be professional athletes. I guess I am wrong.

And obviously that's a tall order, considering that when many straight males talk about the appearance of another male in a positive way, he usually has to follow that up by punching a dude in the arm or adding a disclaimer such as, "My girl likes him, so I guess he's good looking."

First off, I am not sure when the subject of attractive men have come up during a sporting event with my friends and me, because usually we are watching the sport and not trying to judge what the players look like. I don't know anyone that would punch me in the arm if I said Tom Brady was attractive, usually they would look at me like I was crazy for randomly bringing this up. Though I have had discussions on whether Wayne Ellington wears eye makeup and if A.J. Abrams eye lashes are fake.

Of course I really don't care what people think about me, so if I did bring up anything related to a man's looks who plays sports, I would not provide a disclaimer. I literally have no idea what I am talking about right now.

The true rub is knowing men don't have a problem judging a guy when he's not attractive.

Larry Bird, Popeye Jones? Ugliest NBA players of all time.

Men tend to say this because it makes them feel better about their own looks. It has nothing to do with a man thinking, "ok, I can make fun of this guy because no one will think I am gay." Again, I am sports fan so I watch the games and ignore what the people playing the sport looks like. Maybe I am in the minority on this.

It's funny how A-Rod often is criticized for letting his insecurities get the best of him, yet it quite often is his male detractors who let their insecurities get the best of them when talking about him.

I really want to know who is going around calling A-Rod "gay" for taking these pictures for Details magazine? I am sure there are some people but isn't there a slight chance we are overblowing the issue here a little bit? I have made fun of A-Rod's purple lips before but I have never called him "gay," and I don't think his pictures are "gay." I think they show a fairly self involved individual who doesn't exactly know what his public persona should be.

Well, as a gay man, I for one wish these so-called general managers would stop trying to assign players they don't want to my team.

Oh I see. He is not good enough for you. You blame heterosexual males for allegedly calling him "gay," like you are offended by this. In reality, you are just offended because you don't like him enough to have people label him as "gay."

So unless you're willing to swap Rodriguez for, say, RuPaul and a couple of second-round draft picks, you're just going to have to deal with it.

Deal. Just remember, A-Rod has to disappear off the map completely just like RuPaul did. That is part of our agreement.

And while we're negotiating, I'd like to swap Lance Bass and cash for Jon Stewart and a character from Family Guy to be named later.

Wow, LZ Granderson is very picky about who gets to be publicly homosexual. This is kind of a weird way to end this column.

I will do a better job of ending it. I don't think A-Rod's photos have anything to do with male athletes and male sporting fans being afraid to say what athletes are attractive. I think those pictures have more to do with A-Rod being in love with himself and this isn't the best time to try political commentary that may not be relevant to the situation. That's just my opinion and I do usually enjoy LZ's columns.